The Wall Street Journal editors, as many others have, offer an alternative to the government-centric ObamaCare plan, which is now at death’s door. They explain, citing Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. “If consumers do not want expensive ‘Cadillac’ health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits,” Mr. Herrick has written.

A 2008 publication Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance” (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.

This doesn’t mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

[. . .]

Interstate competition made the U.S. one of the world’s most efficient, consumer driven markets. But health insurance is a glaring exception. When the competition caucus in Team Obama has to look for Plan B, this is it.

So why doesn’t the Obama team or their allies look to some alternative ideas, including interstate competition and tax credits, to spur individual purchase of insurance? (We won’t even ask about tort reform, which is anathema to Democrats dependent on the largess of trial lawyers.) Well certainly Obama and liberal lawmakers are having a tough time giving up the idea of universal coverage provided by the government. If they can’t get nationalized medicine now, they may never succeed. So until the last Blue Dog’s arm has been twisted, they won’t throw in the towel.

But in some sense, it would not be attractive for Obama and his liberal cohorts to open up insurance competition, even if it would almost certainly gain a large bipartisan majority in Congress and succeed in increasing availability and lowering costs. Really, from their perspective, the whole point is for government to be giving out health care. There is no glory in allowing the free market to deliver health care. Politicians aren’t going to get much credit for that. And for those incumbents enjoying the flood of lobbyists and constituents who would be seeking to tweak a government-run system one way or another—and pony up commensurate political contributions—there is little to be gained by simply pointing voters to the Internet for an expanded list of insurers.

No wonder then that the White House and Democratic congressional leaders pretend the Republicans have no ideas. There are plenty of ideas and proposals from their critics—but none that hold allure for those who see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to place government front and center in health care and redefine the relationship between Americans and their government.